and to the transactions at Tahiti. He complained that that hon. Member had made a partial representation of the facts in the former case; and in the latter the noble Lord justified the treatment of the Roman Catholic priests, who went, he said, to disturb the tranquillity of an island already pacified, for the purpose of turning Protestants into Catholics, instead of endeavouring to turn Heathens into Christians. Those priests had, however, not been put into "comfortable prisons," like the Madiais, but had been merely told to go about their business. Mr. Kinnaird withdrew his mo

tion.

On the 18th of February, in pursuance of a notice, Mr. Disraeli called the attention of the House to the subject of our relations with France. This, he observed, was the most important subject of modern politics. Peace had now subsisted for nearly 40 years between Great Britain and France; during this interval the social relations between the two countries had multiplied, and, with enlightened legislation, their commercial intercourse was susceptible of infinite development. Having every security for the peace we desired, it was extremely strange, and even startling, he said, that we should be supposed to be on the eve of a rupture with France. The dogma that there was a natural hostility between the two nations was repugnant to the opinions of the wisest of our statesmen, who had held that an alliance with France should be the keystone of our foreign policy. The increase of our armaments was erroneously connected with certain incidents which had occurred in France; its origin was of a date much more

remote; it was to be found chiefly in the changes wrought in science, in the revolution in the art of war, which had deprived us of one of our natural sources of defence. Mr. Disraeli then referred to the plans of the late Government, which would, he said, furnish a Channel fleet of 15 or 16 sail of the line, with an adequate number of smaller vessels. But there was no foundation for the too prevalent belief that this increase of our naval means of defence was occasioned by any political changes in a foreign country. Whoever might sit upon the throne of France, and however tranquil might be the condition of Europe, those who were responsible for the conduct of affairs in this country would, sooner or later, have felt it their duty to place it in a state of defence. Other causes of apprehension had been alleged: the troubled state of France, it was said, had terminated in a revival of a military dynasty; but it did not follow that the descendant of a conqueror should be a rival, and the present Sovereign of France was not by profession a military man. Then France was supposed to be governed by the army; but it was a great error to assume that the army was anxious to conquer another country. There was no doubt a considerable prejudice in this country against the present ruler of France, but it was extremely difficult to form an opinion upon French politics, and so long as the French people were exact in their commercial dealings and friendly in their political relations, it was just as well that we should not interfere in the management of their domestic concerns. Mr. Disraeli read an extract from the speech of Lord John Russell,

on the 3rd of February, 1852, upon the subject of the then recent change in the Government of France, and, expressing his concurrence in the soundness of its sentiments, desired, he said, to ascertain whether they were at all modified, and whether similar opinions were entertained by the noble Lord's present colleagues. He inHe instanced various proofs of the cordial co-operation of France with this country in objects of general benefit, remarking that a nation which had thus entitled itself to the sympathy, respect, and goodfeeling of the people of this country, was not to be treated as a corsair and a bandit. In seeking to discover the views and opinions of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, he referred to the declarations of some of its members. Sir James Graham, he observed, had described the ruler of France as a despot, who had trampled upon the rights and liberties of 40,000,000 of men, thus holding up to public scorn and indignation both ruler and people. Another Cabinet Minister, Sir Charles Wood, had accused the Emperor of the French of gagging the French and Belgian press, though, of course," without meaning the slightest offence to the Emperor. Upon these indiscretions, as he termed them, Mr. Disraeli commented with much severity and still more humour, observing that they suggested grave doubts as to the foreign policy of the present Cabinet, which were not removed by the programme of Lord Aberdeen, and, in these circumstances, it was the absolute duty of the House to obtain something more satisfactory-a frank explanation from the Government upon this important question; he was, therefore, entitled to ask what

46

was the system on which our foreign policy was to be conducted, and what was the state of our relations with France.

Lord John Russell said, if Mr. Disraeli had wished to obtain an explanation from Government respecting its foreign policy, he might have confined his observations within much narrower limits; for the statement made by him (Lord John Russell) the other night, that we were on terms of intimate friendship with France, might almost have sufficed for a member of that House, anxious to obtain some assurance on that important point; he thought it a calamity if an attempt were made to convert this into a party question, and said, that Mr. Disraeli, in bringing it forward in the spirit manifested in his speech, had taken a part which became a mind deeply imbued with faction. He now repeated, that the British Government was on terms of amity with that of France. He was glad to hear it was not for us to interfere in the domestic concerns of France. It would have been well if those sentiments had prevailed in that House in February, 1793. Mr. Disraeli, he remarked, had referred to certain speeches delivered on the hustings. For what purpose was this done, except to excite irritation and provoke suspicions, and this by one who professed to have nothing more at heart than a cordial understanding between the two countries? Nothing was further from the intention of the speakers than to disturb that good understanding; and with reference to the programme of Lord Aberdeen, it contained a clear announcement of the foreign policy of the Government. He retorted the charge of inconsistency and aberration from

principles upon the Protectionist party, and defended, against the strictures of Mr. Disraeli, the temperate progress meditated by the present Government. With respect to himself, he said there were two questions respecting which he felt great interest-the further education of the people, and the amendment of the representation; but he should not push on any measure which he thought out of time, or not likely to meet with success. He thought measures of this kind should be duly weighed; and if he could contribute to the stability of a ministry formed of men honestly intent upon the good of the country, and to bring forward wise measures with due deliberation, he should glory in doing

80.

Mr. Cobden contended that it was not newspaper articles or speeches made, but our great naval preparations, which really endangered our understanding with France, and caused uneasiness at home. If a friendly note were to be exchanged with the French Government on the subject, he had no doubt that it would be responded to in a manner that would banish all suspicion. If it did not, he would be ready to vote 100,000,000l. to resist a French invasion. The Government professed to trust the friendly sentiments of France, while it went on increasing our armaments, which were of no effect, since for every ship we built the French built another, so that the relative forces remained the same. While we were thus lavishing money on our defences, our population was diminishing by emigration. If the If the Government refused to adopt the suggestion of diplomatic action to check the increase of armaments

1

in both countries, he should sus pect them of being actuated by sinister objects.

Sir J. Graham did not believe that a diplomatic note would be attended with the effect Mr. Cobden expected. When we reflected upon the slight occasions which might give rise to unexpected hostilities, he could not be a party to leaving this country unprepared for defence.

No one could be

more attached to peace and economy than he was; but being a friend to peace, and thinking that armaments should not be needlessly increased, he deeply regretted the course pursued by Mr. Disraeli. He denied, that in the speech referred to by that right hon. gentleman, he (Sir James) had called the Emperor of the French a despot or a tyrant. He explained what he did say on that occasion, observing that, although he was most desirous to maintain friendly relations with France, and although not one word had failen from him calculated to disturb these relations, if it should be the opinion of the House that neither there nor on the hustings was he at liberty to give expression to his conscientious feelings, he was not fit to be a minister.

After some observations by Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Baillie, and Lord D. Stuart, the discussion terminated.

On the 4th of April, Lord Campbell, in the House of Lords, called attention to the address presented by a deputation from merchants in the City to the French Emperor. He inquired whether the deputation, which, in the name of the English nation, had presented an address to the Emperor of the French on the relations of peace and war between the two

countries, had been sanctioned by the Government of Her Majesty. He had no desire to blame the individuals composing that deputation. Their motives were doubtless patriotic and disinterested; that if they had acted without the authority of the Government, he apprehended "they had been guilty of an offence perhaps against the law of the land, and, at all events, against the law of nations." It was the established rule, and he quoted Vattel in support of his view, that the intercourse between independent nations should be carried on through the medium of ambassadors. He referred to what took place in 1791, when there was a deputation sent from England to the Empress Catherine, by the English party who wished to preserve relations of peace and amity. Burke then laid it down that that proceeding was "in law, not very remote from an offence, and undoubtedly a most unconstitutional act, and a high treasonable misdemeanour." Now those principles ought to govern the transaction to which he had called attention. He concurred in the sentiments of the address, but he should have thought the declaration of them wholly unnecessary, for all classes and parties concurred in them. He was happy to find that his Imperial Majesty entertained sentiments of peace and amity; but suppose there was a republic in France, and a deputation of Socialists and United Irishmen went over to ask, in the name of the English people, for fraternisation? Did not the deputation of Smith O'Brien and the Irish sympathisers create great alarm? No doubt the deputation who presented the late address were actuated by disinterested motives; but might not

these demonstrations be got up for mere stock-jobbing purposes?

The Earl of Clarendon stated that the authority of Government had neither been given nor asked. A gentleman had shown him the address, which he thought perfectly unobjectionable, and such as every right-minded man could have no possible objections to sign. But when asked, he objected to instruct the British Ambassador to be present when the address was laid before the Emperor; and Lord Cowley was not present. The address had made a good impression; but had he been asked, he would have objected to such a transaction as perfectly unnecessary," because the feelings of this country towards France were of the most cordial description, and no misapprehension existed among the French people. There was no comparison between the late and the Irish deputation of 1848.

The Earl of Ellenborough was glad to hear from Lord Campbell that this transaction was as illegal as it was repugnant to the feelings of every Englishman. He dissented from the complimentary terms used in the address, and the whole transaction filled him with "unqualified disgust."-The Lord Chancellor hoped it would not go forth that the deputation was illegal. Such proceedings were not quite unusual. A deputation, not national, indeed, but as national as they could make it, had not long ago waited on the Grand Duke of Tuscany. - Lord Campbell explained that it would be necessary to define the word "illegal." If it meant the subject of an indictment, it would not amount to a misdemeanour, unless there was a malus animus; but if illegal meant that which the law did not sanc